A commentary on the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted of the murder of 270 people in the Pan Am 103 disaster.

Monday, 15 December 2014

Malpractice at the CIA and the Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of a letter submitted by Dr Jim Swire to The Times on 10 December but not (as yet) published:]

The Senate inquiry [into torture and the CIA] was essentially limited to post 9/11 behaviour by the CIA.

During the Lockerbie trial of two Libyans over the Lockerbie disaster the CIA was the major provider of evidence to the court.

Their attempts to conceal the true status of their key witness by selective redaction and concealment of their cable traffic led to their Lordships rejecting his entire evidence. It emerged that the man was a liar, a fantasist and a corrupt consumer of their resources and that the CIA knew this before the trial.

Scotland's then Lord Advocate was led to the very brink of perjury in trying to defend that evidence. [RB: More about this disgraceful episode can be read here.]

Since the trial it has now become clear that a key forensic item allegedly from the crash site had in fact been manufactured using advanced electronic technology simply not in use at the time of Lockerbie.

The verdict reached has contributed to NATO's decision to bomb the unfortunate Libya into current chaos, the murder of Colonel Gaddafi and a failed State where ISIS is already training jihadies, an whence arms have infiltrated the terrorist groups throughout much of the Sahel region.

It also led to the conviction of an innocent Libyan, the destruction of the reputation of Scottish Justice the protection of the real Lockerbie perpetrators, and much extra suffering for inquisitive Lockerbie relatives.

I have faith in the philosophy underlying the Obama regime, based on his magnificent Cairo speech after election. I believe the President should now seek an extension of investigation of the CIA prior to 9/11 as well.

If one is to lance a boil it is wise to curette out all the pus on the same occasion.

8 comments:

Rendition, Guantanamo Bay and torture are all the public relations window dressing for the contrived ‘war on terror’ following 9/11.

None of it is real in the sense of seeking genuine evidence and culprits responsible for 9/11 or other terrorist attacks on America.

This is because the destruction of the 3 towers was by controlled demolition using military explosives planted throughout the buildings and then attributed to two planes and resulting office fires! See AE9/11truth.org

In short, 9/11 was an inside job [a new Pearl Harbour] to facilitate a neo-con ‘war on terror’ and those responsible promoted pretend ‘anti-terrorist’ activity and 'homeland security' to blame others and divert attention away from their own crimes.

I note that you have been neglecting your medication.So now Pearl Harbour was a put up job too. I like imagination, particularly of the Dadaist variety, however, yours I believe should be reserved for something more along the lines of a religious tract.

Get your facts straight.

Welcome back, by the way, your sense of humour has been greatly missed.

.... it has now become clear that a key forensic item allegedly from the crash site had in fact been manufactured using advanced electronic technology simply not in use at the time of Lockerbie.

That is one hell of a bold statement, and as far as I can see isn't something that's "clear" by any stretch of the imagination. Provenance of key evidence items within the inquiry is pretty sound from fairly early on in the investigation.

Dear QR,Roosevelt encouraged the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour by imposing an oil embargo on them with a demand they leave Manchuria – without telling the Hawaii military commanders of the deteriorating political situation.

Foolishly rather than leave Manchuria the Japanese decided to attack Pearl Harbour and then attack the Dutch East Indies to secure their oil supplies.

The attack on Pearl Harbour was not an inside job, but was an attack knowingly incited to draw the US into WW11 against the wishes of the people.

9/11 was a new Pearl Harbour intended to turn the public in favour of a ‘war on terror’ on the back of a false flag and the Neo-Cons promoted a smokescreen of ‘anti-terrorist activity and confessions’ as a decoy to hide their involvement and the truth from the people.

Saying the fragment is fake is a bold and effective way to sum up and popularise the case against the Crown and it should have been said at Zeist, particularly as reasonable doubt should have incited a closer look.

To continue to make out it is a legitimate piece of evidence is not helpful!

The fragment may well be a fabrication. I think it is. It was however NOT "manufactured using advanced electronic technology simply not in use at the time of Lockerbie." It can't have been. It dates back to "the time of Lockerbie" itself. It didn't magically materialise years later.

Jim Swire wrote:".... using advanced electronic technology simply not in use at the time of Lockerbie."

Rolfe wrote:"It was however NOT 'manufactured using ...' It can't have been. It dates back to 'the time of Lockerbie' itself."

But JS statement is still essentially correct for the part that matters.

The Sn-only technology was simply not in _general industrial_ use. It was mostly a lab-research matter. Did somebody blunder at FBI?

As said earlier: if somebody had reproduced the timer for commercial purposes there would not be a single good reason to make it look like a 100% copy of MEBOs, both for the PCB and the casing.

Unless of course it was to fool a deeply scrutinizing buyer into believing that this was a "genuine MEBO timer", an idea that would make no sense for a little known company and a simple specialized product like this. Not even in e.g. iPhone copies do the PCB look anywhere near the original - why should it?

In other words: if MEBO did not produce the board, the only reasonable way it could reasonably exist would be, that it is a deliberate fake, made exclusively to claim the involvement of MEBO and Libya/Megrahi in the disaster.

The fact that your authorities make trips to Libya instead of investigating this matter - and Marquise staying silent - speaks volumes about their dedication to hide the truth.

JS is right to bring it up at every occasion possible.Correctness may at times leave the listener with a false impression, especially when short statements are needed.

Are there tigers in African nature?

"No" is a much better answer than "Yes" - even though news is out, that two tigers escaped from a circus into the jungle yesterday...

Jim Swire has an indomitable spirit but with respect, he does sometimes say things that progress the issue but are questionable!

I do suspect that these particular comments may be because the multi-million pound cover-up extends to passing disinformation [from respected sources] to those seeking an enquiry.

A bold statement saying ‘the fragment is fake due to different metal content’ is clear enough, whereas saying “manufactured using advanced electronic technology not in use at the time of Lockerbie” is not something you would say, even if true!

It sounds like a prepared statement given to you to make by someone else that allows others to make the accurate [but essentially irrelevant] point that it’s inaccurate, because the relevant point is its fake!

In other words ‘its fake’, becomes [deliberately] obscured by a discussion of how its fake that brings into doubt [for the public] whether it’s fake!

Translate

Blog Archive

Contributors

VISITS

The hit counter that I have been using has given up the ghost. From now on, I shall periodically disclose here the total number of pageviews from July 2010, as provided by blogspot/blogger. As at 09.00 GMT on 08 Febuary 2018, the pageviews numbered 1,700,288.

unique visitors since 2200 on 13 Nov 09

Comments

Readers are invited to comment on blog posts. All comments require to be pre-moderated by me, and I shall reject all (a) that are not related to the Lockerbie disaster or (b) that fail to meet my -- perhaps idiosyncratic -- standards of courtesy towards other contributors. Comments will not be rejected simply because I disagree with them or because I, or other contributors, find them irritating. But comments will be rejected if they distort or misrepresent the evidence; are defamatory; or if they risk embroiling me, as publisher, in defamation proceedings. I am perfectly relaxed about being sued in respect of material which I personally have posted -- but not in respect of material that others wish to post as comments and which, in any case, I often strongly disagree with.

Particularly during my sojourns in South Africa, it may not be possible for me to perform the moderation function speedily. I regret the necessity of moderation but it has been rendered inevitable by the behaviour of a particular commentator whose contributions will always and without exception be rejected.

No correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions.

Contact me

If you have news or views about the Lockerbie case, you can contact me at rblackqc@outlook.com